Barkeep, put the glasses behind the counter except for anyone who needs a drink, which you can put on my tab. I like to stir the pot once and a while and I think its awhile now.
I tend to think that ol' Stonewall Jackson is a bit overrated since most of you Southerners think he walked on water while shooting lightning bolts out his rear. Sure he had his brigade standing firm at 1st Manassas but they hadn't been under fire and I'd be willing to bet that several other brigadiers could have accomplished the same thing that day, especially against Union troops who had been in action for hours. Then you take the Valley action, where he probably did his best work. However if you look at who he accomplished it against then it doesn't seem quite so a great accomplishment. I mean Fremont and Banks both proved themselves to be some of the most incompetent boobs to wear a Union uniform. I think my grandmother could have accomplished Second Manassas. I don't think you have to be that great to find that railroad cut and then dare Pope to attack you. Not sure he could have gotten away with it against the AoP of 1864 but the Army of Virginia was another thing. A Union General who would mass and attack in mass would have made that battle turn out differently. Antietam was good work on his part and I'll give him that one. Chancellorsville really wasn't his moment to claim. All he had to do was follow the scout and then attack in position. I say that the Peninsula campaign was where he should really be given a failing grade. When he was up against the AoP, and an AoP led by McClellan at that, he really failed Lee. You can make all kind excuses for him and a lot of Southerners will do so, but it still comes down to the fact that he failed the ANV in those Seven Days. In my mind that makes Jackson a good general but not the general that he is generally portrayed as. Okay, let's hear your opinion, but no firearms please as they just finished repairing the walls from the last time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />Barkeep, put the glasses behind the counter except for anyone who needs a drink, which you can put on my tab. I like to stir the pot once and a while and I think its awhile now.
I tend to think that ol' Stonewall Jackson is a bit overrated since most of you Southerners think he walked on water while shooting lightning bolts out his rear. Sure he had his brigade standing firm at 1st Manassas but they hadn't been under fire and I'd be willing to bet that several other brigadiers could have accomplished the same thing that day, especially against Union troops who had been in action for hours. Then you take the Valley action, where he probably did his best work. However if you look at who he accomplished it against then it doesn't seem quite so a great accomplishment. I mean Fremont and Banks both proved themselves to be some of the most incompetent boobs to wear a Union uniform. I think my grandmother could have accomplished Second Manassas. I don't think you have to be that great to find that railroad cut and then dare Pope to attack you. Not sure he could have gotten away with it against the AoP of 1864 but the Army of Virginia was another thing. A Union General who would mass and attack in mass would have made that battle turn out differently. Antietam was good work on his part and I'll give him that one. Chancellorsville really wasn't his moment to claim. All he had to do was follow the scout and then attack in position. I say that the Peninsula campaign was where he should really be given a failing grade. When he was up against the AoP, and an AoP led by McClellan at that, he really failed Lee. You can make all kind excuses for him and a lot of Southerners will do so, but it still comes down to the fact that he failed the ANV in those Seven Days. In my mind that makes Jackson a good general but not the general that he is generally portrayed as. Okay, let's hear your opinion, but no firearms please as they just finished repairing the walls from the last time.

Clearly you've been heavily into the sauce this weekend. [:)] Through Chancellorsville, without looking ahead to the next 2 years, which Union general wouldn't you have given up if you could have had Jackson fill his boots? Your grandmother aside, of course.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Den McBride</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />Barkeep, put the glasses behind the counter except for anyone who needs a drink, which you can put on my tab. I like to stir the pot once and a while and I think its awhile now.
I tend to think that ol' Stonewall Jackson is a bit overrated since most of you Southerners think he walked on water while shooting lightning bolts out his rear. Sure he had his brigade standing firm at 1st Manassas but they hadn't been under fire and I'd be willing to bet that several other brigadiers could have accomplished the same thing that day, especially against Union troops who had been in action for hours. Then you take the Valley action, where he probably did his best work. However if you look at who he accomplished it against then it doesn't seem quite so a great accomplishment. I mean Fremont and Banks both proved themselves to be some of the most incompetent boobs to wear a Union uniform. I think my grandmother could have accomplished Second Manassas. I don't think you have to be that great to find that railroad cut and then dare Pope to attack you. Not sure he could have gotten away with it against the AoP of 1864 but the Army of Virginia was another thing. A Union General who would mass and attack in mass would have made that battle turn out differently. Antietam was good work on his part and I'll give him that one. Chancellorsville really wasn't his moment to claim. All he had to do was follow the scout and then attack in position. I say that the Peninsula campaign was where he should really be given a failing grade. When he was up against the AoP, and an AoP led by McClellan at that, he really failed Lee. You can make all kind excuses for him and a lot of Southerners will do so, but it still comes down to the fact that he failed the ANV in those Seven Days. In my mind that makes Jackson a good general but not the general that he is generally portrayed as. Okay, let's hear your opinion, but no firearms please as they just finished repairing the walls from the last time.

Clearly you've been heavily into the sauce this weekend. [:)] Through Chancellorsville, without looking ahead to the next 2 years, which Union general wouldn't you have given up if you could have had Jackson fill his boots? Your grandmother aside, of course.

Well for one thing he didn't shoot lightning bolts from his rear but from his eyes. That is why they called him "Old Blue Light".[:D]

For another great generals always make their opponents look like boobs be they Jackson, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. In 1861 those boobs were called Yankees. That's why they are considered great generals and their opponents boobs.[:D]

Later Yankees were better. They had the likes of Jackson training them on what not to do. So Grant finally took an army twice the size of his opponents and took Richmond after over a year of almost continuous fighting. Hmmm, boob I think.[:D][:D][:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />Well for one thing he didn't shoot lightning bolts from his rear but from his eyes. That is why they called him "Old Blue Light".[:D]

For another great generals always make their opponents look like boobs be they Jackson, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. In 1861 those boobs were called Yankees. That's why they are considered great generals and their opponents boobs.[:D]

Later Yankees were better. They had the likes of Jackson training them on what not to do. So Grant finally took an army twice the size of his opponents and took Richmond after over a year of almost continuous fighting. Hmmm, boob I think.[:D][:D][:D]

Yup, you are right. That was Mel Gibson's line in Braveheart.
Yup it took Grant a year of fighting the 'Greatest General in history'
if you are to believe these southern boys. Fighting on exterior lines against an entrenched army.[8D]

For another great generals always make their opponents look like boobs be they Jackson, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. In 1861 those boobs were called Yankees. That's why they are considered great generals and their opponents boobs.[:D]

Later Yankees were better. They had the likes of Jackson training them on what not to do. So Grant finally took an army twice the size of his opponents and took Richmond after over a year of almost continuous fighting. Hmmm, boob I think.[:D][:D][:D]

Yup, you are right. That was Mel Gibson's line in Braveheart.
Yup it took Grant a year of fighting the 'Greatest General in history'
if you are to believe these southern boys. Fighting on exterior lines against an entrenched army.[8D]

As for making others look bad there is a difference. No matter who they faced Banks and Freemont made the opposing Generals look good.

The main value of Jackson to Lee, IMNSHO, was 1. his ability for independent command as in the Valley Campaign, and 2. his ability to aggressively lead troops in attacks which helped establish Lee's early reputation as an invincible commander. Lee realized his importance as in the quote at Chancellorsville, "Give General Jackson my affectionate regards, and say to him: he has lost his left arm but I my right."

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-20th Maine-
(At the end of the first day's fighting at Fredericksburg...)

But out of that silence rose new sounds more appalling still; a strange ventriloquism, of which you could not locate the source, a smothered moan, as if a thousand discords were flowing together into a key-note weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear, yet startling with its nearness; the writhing concord broken by cries for help, some begging for a drop of water, some calling on God for pity; and some on friendly hands to finish what the enemy had so horribly begun; some with delirious, dreamy voices murmuring loved names, as if the dearest were bending over them; and underneath, all the time, the deep bass note from closed lips too hopeless, or too heroic, to articulate their agony...It seemed best to bestow myself between two dead men among the many left there by earlier assaults, and to draw another crosswise for a pillow out of the trampled, blood-soaked sod, pulling the flap of his coat over my face to fend off the chilling winds, and still more chilling, the deep, many voiced moan that overspread the field.

Gen Wm. Tecumseh Sherman
"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine.
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
War is hell."

I advise to the Blue paunches that they should stop drinking Bourbon ...[:D] maybe it is too strong for them. I have understood now the motive of many defeats of the Yankees against my boys.[:0]! The drink!. It is unnecessary to say nothing of Jackson ... the history is there.

Well at least Brigadier McDaniel made a thought out argument. Must be one of you few Southerners who could read and knows what shoes are. [;)]

I would counter Brigadier McDaniel's argument about Jackson making Banks and Fremont into boobs though by looking at their later performances. Both would go out of their way to prove their incompetence at leading troops. I just wonder how Jackson would have fared in the Valley against an 1862 Grant?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />Well at least Brigadier McDaniel made a thought out argument. Must be one of you few Southerners who could read and knows what shoes are. [;)]

I would counter Brigadier McDaniel's argument about Jackson making Banks and Fremont into boobs though by looking at their later performances. Both would go out of their way to prove their incompetence at leading troops. I just wonder how Jackson would have fared in the Valley against an 1862 Grant?

Probably the same. Grant was a hammerer. Without his sledge hammer he pretty much was mediocre tactically just like Jackson. He would have had the same problems as Banks. Trying to coordinate converging multiple forces on an central opponent that had enough strength to defeat any one force by itself. He would have to deal with the same tactical leaders like Fremont and Shields. He would also have the same conflicting instructions from multiple commanders: Lincoln, McDowell and McClellan.

Banks probably did as well as most average leaders during the Civil War. He wasn't a Sherman but he was better than a Butler. Fremont was pretty pitiful but he handled is troops during the campaign about as well as could be expected. While to us it looks like all they had to do was attack and let numbers overwhelm, we overlook the difficulty of coordinating such an attack and to attack alone invited total defeat.

Jackson played the Union problem perfectly. He also had superiors who supported him at critical times so that he could have victory.

Cozzens' "Shenandoah 1862" is a good study of the campaign from both sides point of view. To quote his view:

"the Union Generals sent to oppose Jackson - with the exception of BG Shields... - performed reasonably well in view of the many factors working against them. Among these were the absence of an overall commander, chronic supply problems caused in part by persistent torrential rains, and well-intentioned but too often ill-informed meddling from Washington."

My first post here in years. I came here to talk about Jackson from a different perspective. But this thread is perfect.

My fiance' has a 10 year old grandson, Dorsey, with Asperger's Symdrome (AS). As we've researched this I've been thinking alot about Jackson. It is my belief that Jackson quite likely had AS. Maybe not a full case but he definitely shows tendencies.

I had never heard of it till I met Cindy and started being a co-den leader in her grandson's Cub Scout den.

In case you hadn't heard of it. Asperger's is a high function form of autism. Many people are never diagnosed. AS sufferers have a tough time seeing the world from any view but their own. When they believe they are right no amount of discussion/argument will sway them. I believe they also have a tough time understanding how someone doesn't understand what they've said. They can be absolutely brilliant in certain areas. They tend to have poor social skills, with little to no ability to make friends. They can have intense absorption in certain subjects. They take affront easily. They have a complete lack of empathy. But when someone does reach them they are very sensitive (think the little girl Jackson got so close to the winter before he died). They can be clumsy, with ill-coordinated movements and odd postures (Jackson always thought his body was out of balance and he rode with one hand raised up to "balance" his body).

They can have very very strong positive aspects too. they are extremely honest, reliable, dedicated and very very determined.

With Stonewall. It was his way or the highway. He was as far from a social butterfly as you can be. When students didn't understand what he taught instead of thinking of another way to explain it he repeated the lecture word for word. He arrested officers at the merest hint of not following his orders to the letter. He wasn't over communicative of his plans.

Obviously I could go on. But the more Cindy and I've read to work with Dorsey the more i believe Jackson had AS.

With all due respect, General Nelms, I always thought that Mr. Thomas Jackson, formerly of the United States Army has been perfectly rated as a lemon sucking introvert that refused to confide in his subordinates, was fairly dogmatic, and prone to over-use of "discipline". As such, as an eccentric, the aforementioned Mr. Thomas J. Jackson was rated about correctly.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum